Blogcritics Comments on Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About

Comment by Tony on Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:48:31 EDT

Well, I lived through that time in Detroit and it was not fun watching the team constantly have little to no talent because they refused to bring anyone in to make the team legitimate. The turnound in Detroit started when they signed Pudge. This signing showed the rest of the free agents that the team was willing to invest in winning. Its great to draft and develope players but when those players get good, you have to pay them to keep them. If the Yanks had decided not to pay home grown products Rivera, Jeter, Williams, Posada, and Pettitte, the 90's would have been a very different time in baseball. Conversley, had a team like the Expos not run a constant fire sale on all the outstanding prospect they had we might talk of the Expos dynasties led by Pedro and Randy Johnson. If I was a Twins fan i would have a massive problem with them not paying the money to keep Santana when he could be what puts the team over the top in the central. Why, as a fan, should i pay $60 dollars for a ticket to go watch a team owned by someone with no committment to building a winner. Oakland is slightly different only in that they bring in players who fit a certain profile and know when to cut bait on players like Zito, but the fact is they would be the Red Sox (the other sabermetric team) if they would invest a little bit of money in keeping their stars. I don't advocate indiscrimately throwing money at worthless free agents or signing washed up pitchers to three years deal (Dontrelle Willis anyone?) but if you want to keep your prospects you have to invest in the team.

Comment by Matthew T. Sussman on Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:06:40 EDT

But Coke and Pepsi aren't sister businesses under the umbrella of Major League Soda. "how did you like when big Mike spent all his money on the hockey team and left the Tigers as the joke of baseball?" Well, I was 14, so I really didn't have much cognitive thought on the financial side of baseball back then. But today I don't care how much a team spends. As long as they're drafting well and hiring the right people, there's nothing wrong with being a perpetual small market team like Minnesota or Oakland. Ilitch wasn't doing anything right until he brought in knowledgeable people like Dombrowski and Leyland and other minor league managers who were able to cultivate the talent into a contending big league team.

Comment by Tony on Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About

Fri, 16 May 2008 09:36:35 EDT

Thats funny....I'll answer that like this. Being that we don't live in a communist society, the idea that because the owner of a business decides to invest heavily in a product he is trying to sell to the fans, maximizing that product's potential and quality is ridiculous, i.e. revenue sharing is ridiculous. Should Coke have to give money back to 7up or Pepsi if their sales spike on a marketing plan they invested heavily in? Every baseball team is either owned by a multi-millionaire or a corporation. If they choose to not invest in their team that's their own decision but there is no reason teams like the Red Sox, Tigers, or Yankees should be punished. I know you're a Tigers fan Matt; how did you like when big Mike spent all his money on the hockey team and left the Tigers as the joke of baseball?

Comment by Matthew T. Sussman on Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About

Thu, 15 May 2008 22:25:14 EDT

Did Hank understand that just because the Tampa Bay Rays threw intentionally at one of their batters, doesn't mean they should have to give some of the shared revenue back?